Authenticity of this Shintogo Kunimitsu Mei?

[Lewis B]

 

What are the opinions regarding the authenticity of this Mei from a Tanto in poor state of preservation. I have tried to dig out comparative Mei from other known Soshu Kumimitsu blades and I see some distinct differences that would would lead towards this being Gimei

 

 

What immediately stands out is the angle of the vertical line in the first Kanji. In the known examples this mark is almost vertical or near vertical. In the second kanji the vertical mark is again almost vertical or slightly leaning to the right. Would these observations lead one away from it being genuine?

 

 

[Jacques D.]

Picture is too small but i wouldn't dream too much .. 

[Brian]

No-one likes calling gimei or shoshin from a mei alone. Most are going to say you need to judge the work, not the mei.
But it does appear to be poorly done. There is a lot of hesitation in the strokes, and if I had to make a call based purely on that, I would have to go with a call of gimei.

[Jacques D.]

Quote

No-one likes calling gimei or shoshin from a mei alone

I'd like to know what you do when the blade is not polished and neither hada nor hamon are visible. How do you judge whether this blade deserves restoration or not?

 

As I've always said, it's when the work fits that you must study the mei most seriously. 

[Lewis B]

To add a little more meat to the discussion. The tanto in its current state was submitted to the NBTHK several years ago but they rejected it. Interestingly it wasn't an outright rejection, stating it required further research. Having compared the Mei with the others I posted I can understand why they were so hestitant.

 

Current state

[Brian]

Get a decent polisher to open a window.

[Lewis B]

I don't own the blade, but was considering it until I started to understand better the style of genuine Mei

 

From the Soshuden Museum

"Regarding the master’s signature on this work, we can say that all of the above features, mandatory for Shintōgo Kunimitsu’s signature, appear on the sword’s tang. This signature includes an absolutely vertical dividing line in the “Kuni” kanji; a calligraphic style of writing the “crown” in the “Mitsu” kanji, with a strictly parallel left stroke of the “crown,” and the tilting leg of the “Mitsu” kanji ends with a rising upstroke. Thus, when studying this sword, we have a unique opportunity to see in detail, in a “vivid” example, all of these features of the master’s signature, which are mentioned in both old and new sources."

 

http://www.nihonto-m...togo-kunimitsu-tanto

 

As you say Brian the application of the strikes appears quite hesitant.

[reinhard]

Mei seems to be within the perimeter of known Shintogo-mei.

But even if it can be verified as genuine:

The blade has been ground to its core and is at the end of its life-cycle.

Imagine a demolished canvas with a famous signature still visible.

Is that what you are looking for?

 

reinhard

 

 

[Lewis B]

21 hours ago, reinhard said:

Mei seems to be within the perimeter of known Shintogo-mei.

But even if it can be verified as genuine:

The blade has been ground to its core and is at the end of its life-cycle.

Imagine a demolished canvas with a famous signature still visible.

Is that what you are looking for?

 

reinhard

 

 

Well after some deliberation I bought it. It could be a basket case and the current condition is certainly questionable. But at the very least it'll make for an interesting study piece.

[Rivkin]

It has a matching sugata for the late Kamakura period. There is significant gap between the blade's condition, which is problematic, and the signature, which is in good shape.

On the writing I can only second what Dmitry's wrote. Solid description of what the signature should be.

 

[Brian]

At the very least, this thread will become a huge reference post for future people researching this mei.